"Now Showing"
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
I think the reason I preferred Apocalypse Now and Platoon is really the fact that they were superbly directed and acted. Just excellently well put together films.
I don't watch films just for the gore and blood, I watch them for the intricate camera work, and the subtle emotions they create. A well directed film does much more than simply tell a story
SPR was groundbreaking, in that it made the second world war "real". Until then, all WWII films were very kind of 'clean' and sanitised. SPR brought in the true horror these people had to face. My Grandad was on the beaches at Normandy, and he ran the Normandy Veterans Association for a while. I grew up with him, and his war-time friends talking about the beach landings, and the French invasion. SPR was therefore 'real', but only as real as Jurassic Park (which it reminds me of a huge amount). It's an adventure story, a boys own tale - with some gritty realism thrown in for good measure. The reality would have made a much less interesting film - a lot of confusion, fear and simply doing things to stay alive. No heroes, no great heart wrenching speeches - just a lot of scared people doing what they could.
SPR is meant to appeal to people who enjoy films like Independence Day, only because it's "a true story", it can appeal on a slightly higher intellectual level. They are both essentially the film though. Nothing wrong with either film, as an over the top heroic tale - I enjoy both for what they are - they both fail to really tackle the issues of human nature in a war zone in the way Platoon and Apocalypse Now do. That;s why the latter are better, because they tell the tale of the people, the real story is secondary. In SPR, the story is king, and the people play second fiddle
Got Die Hard on Blu-Ray to watch tonight though - I love that film
I don't watch films just for the gore and blood, I watch them for the intricate camera work, and the subtle emotions they create. A well directed film does much more than simply tell a story
SPR was groundbreaking, in that it made the second world war "real". Until then, all WWII films were very kind of 'clean' and sanitised. SPR brought in the true horror these people had to face. My Grandad was on the beaches at Normandy, and he ran the Normandy Veterans Association for a while. I grew up with him, and his war-time friends talking about the beach landings, and the French invasion. SPR was therefore 'real', but only as real as Jurassic Park (which it reminds me of a huge amount). It's an adventure story, a boys own tale - with some gritty realism thrown in for good measure. The reality would have made a much less interesting film - a lot of confusion, fear and simply doing things to stay alive. No heroes, no great heart wrenching speeches - just a lot of scared people doing what they could.
SPR is meant to appeal to people who enjoy films like Independence Day, only because it's "a true story", it can appeal on a slightly higher intellectual level. They are both essentially the film though. Nothing wrong with either film, as an over the top heroic tale - I enjoy both for what they are - they both fail to really tackle the issues of human nature in a war zone in the way Platoon and Apocalypse Now do. That;s why the latter are better, because they tell the tale of the people, the real story is secondary. In SPR, the story is king, and the people play second fiddle
Got Die Hard on Blu-Ray to watch tonight though - I love that film
kimahri
CF Legend
I saw village of the damned (1995) last night... it was odd :?
It was cheesy and kinda crap but definatly had a so-bad-its-good feel to it.
Some of the childrens voice acting was really pap but that made them seem really out of place and something wasnt right about them... Ah well
5/10
It was cheesy and kinda crap but definatly had a so-bad-its-good feel to it.
Some of the childrens voice acting was really pap but that made them seem really out of place and something wasnt right about them... Ah well
5/10
Came in from work this evening to catch my sister watching Catch me if you can. Annoyingly this meant I was distracted and watched the entire film. What a shame [/sarcasm]
For years I didn't want to see this film because I'm not a fan of Leonardo DiCrapio. I saw it the other year and I loved it and even on second viewing this evening I still thought it was good. Yeah, very enjoyable film, well directed etc, it loves it.
Rating: 4.5/5
For years I didn't want to see this film because I'm not a fan of Leonardo DiCrapio. I saw it the other year and I loved it and even on second viewing this evening I still thought it was good. Yeah, very enjoyable film, well directed etc, it loves it.
Rating: 4.5/5
Johnny
Hyper Poster
There Will Be Blood.
Incredible.
I rarely ever see films like this and with settings like this, but I thought it was truly incredible, with an unbelievable performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.
It may be 2½ hours long, but I didn't feel the need to check the time and the movie felt like it was 2½ hours long, if not longer, so not a minute of the film was wasted with crap.
Probably one of my favourite films EVER.
10/10.
Incredible.
I rarely ever see films like this and with settings like this, but I thought it was truly incredible, with an unbelievable performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.
It may be 2½ hours long, but I didn't feel the need to check the time and the movie felt like it was 2½ hours long, if not longer, so not a minute of the film was wasted with crap.
Probably one of my favourite films EVER.
10/10.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
Grade six teacher was about thirty, if that, same with my history teacher this year.
Either way, whether it was the Canadian battle or not, I don't care. I just didn't think it was a great movie. It wasn't horrible, and I thought the beginning was amazing, but it wasn't a topper for me.
David
Mega Poster
I finally saw Cloverfield today.
I thought it was alright. It wasn't bad, but then again it wasn't great either. The whole camera concept was good, if not a little sickening at times. I felt it could have done with a bit more action, as a lot was talking but the action sequences were good.
Overall it good, but I wouldn't go to see it again. Oh yeah and the ending was absolutely ****.
I'll give it a 7/10.
I thought it was alright. It wasn't bad, but then again it wasn't great either. The whole camera concept was good, if not a little sickening at times. I felt it could have done with a bit more action, as a lot was talking but the action sequences were good.
Overall it good, but I wouldn't go to see it again. Oh yeah and the ending was absolutely ****.
I'll give it a 7/10.
I just saw Independence Day for the first time earlier. It's a pretty good film and the special effects are pretty good even for today's standards. One problem with it though is the patrionism. Although it is to be expected with the a film with that name, it did get fairly annoying at some points (but i'm British and crave disapointment lol).
Overall a 7/10 from me.
Going to watch the original Alien in a bit as well. I am well behind on films lol.
Overall a 7/10 from me.
Going to watch the original Alien in a bit as well. I am well behind on films lol.
Lewis
Hyper Poster
I saw Jumper today. It was alrite but I felt it lacked any real storyline, you are sort of dumped into the thick of it straight away, although you are told what a 'Jumper' is (not something to keep you warm!). Special effects are pretty good and the locations are impressive.
Overall, 7.5/10
Overall, 7.5/10
I just can't see what the big deal is about it. It was alright, but the fact that it took an hour for anything half decent to happen annoyed me a bit, but hey. That's my opinion.furie said:John91 said:
It's to stop teenage idiots from watching it and saying it's crap
Best. film. Ever!
John91 said:
First 5 minutes - some of the best cinematography and direction in the history of film making.
The slow sweeping camera pans across the decks of the Nostromo, with low, sweeping music. The computer sparking to life, the CRT reflected in the helmet.
The slow wake up and building of characters. the atmospheric trek across LV-426, and the first glimpse through the storm of Giger's derelict. The tension and mystery which builds in stunning huge sets, culminating in the attack on John Hurt.
The pacing is sublime, the acting is exemplary across the board, the direction is awe inspiring, the special effects (for a film which is now 30 years old) are (with the exception of the chest burster) still excellent, the climax and fear of being hunted as the film explodes - then the way 'mother' goes against her children in a pseudo-anthropomorphic way is story telling at it's best.
It's what films should be like. A well told tale which you can sink into and let yourself go. It's the antithesis of the wham-bam-no thanks mam mentality the movie industry suffers from today. Formulaic films, identikit story threads, off the shelf SFX - it's all bland.
Alien stood at at the time as a special piece of film, and it stands apart from films today for the exact same reasons. It's as much a moving piece of art as it is a film, but as a film, it's subtle, tense and a joy to watch.
The lack of gore and site of the Alien is deliberate. Ridley Scott understands that fear of the unknown or speculative is much greater than the fear of something present. If you can see what you're up against, you can fight it (or run) - If you have no idea, then it can get you whenever it wants.
I weep for the future of the film industry if people have been so blinded to great cinema by the production line trash hollywood has churned out for the last 10 years since the "CGI Explosion". ILM - I now hate you!
Martyn said:
Or that! :lol: